Large Hadron Collider

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />Will this thing provide any useful information for the meta model? Or perhaps information that will further discredit the standard model?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Maybe some of our particle physics experts can comment? -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><br />Maybe some of our particle physics experts can comment? -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would recommend not expertize but common sense allied with Euclidean Geometry and Newtonian Mechanics. Accelerating a proton up to an impressive velocity is doing nothing more than duplicating a neutron released by a fissioning nucleus. The result is a simple collision which fragments the target nucleus. There is no hard evidence that a proton is broken apart. For the gentlemen who proclaim the discovery of new particles - the axiom is proof positive.

Gregg Wilson

Way back someone said smashing atoms to get information is like smashing pianos to gey music or something like that. We are very fortunate these guys are not composers. They can't do much harm and maybe something new will develop-we can hope anyway.

You can watch a pod cast of the science programme Horizon here.

www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/hori...oadband/tx/universe/

It's a very glossy production, full of all the (crawling) endorsements of Einstein you might want. One guy doesn't seem aware that it was Jeans who put forward the famous e = mc squared notion.

There's even a vote button for whether you think it's a good idea to create a black hole and suck the earth into it []

It gets more interesting when they start talking about the Higgs. Space is full of these particles, and they are massive, about a thousand times the mass of the proton. mass is explained by a particle moving through this higgs field and it's something like treacle. Yeah, explaining mass by recourse to mass isn't cricket but the important thing to note, is that the guys at cern don't agree with Einstein but aren't saying.

(edited) The higgs field is an aether field, and they suggest it's like treacle, so there's more than just me talking about a viscoelastic medium [8D] The bad news is that the politics of the crisis of physics, means that no one will openly attack Einstein. That's not because he's some sort of god but because the crisis is still there. Einstien's ideas are a brilliant synthesis of lots of people's, contrary, theories but nevertheless a sticking plaster. The particle physics people are not going to go head o head, because they are into quantum mechanics, and that's a body of knowledge in search of a theory. It is higly accurate though and i would put my money on it rather than GR.

A bit more thought on this. If they are thinking treacle, then they are thinking about the Higgs field as a complex number field. But, they are thinking in terms of it being a zero to light speed medium.

Faster than light, we are in a space of negative refractive index. I don't like the idea of negative mass but a ftl Higgs boson would appear to have less mass in any transactions with matter. So, let's say that they find the light speed Higgs boson, there will be a very good chance that it will appear from nothing, then instantly disappear. The other alternative is that they don't see any sign of the slower than light Higgs.

The question, in both cases, is what will be the interpretation of the experiments? I think the classic model will become even more like the cystal sphere model of our solar system than it is now. Gluons and quarks are all very nice but I can't help but feel that there's more than a little of the blind sufis, examining an elephant, about it all.

A Higgs that appears and diappears in an instant will be presented as proof of the big bang. One towatch out for I think. [8D]

I would suggest a careful review of Rutherford's experiment in about 1910, where alpha particles emitted by Polonium where aimed at a very thin film of gold atoms. His conclusion that the nucleus is extremely minute in comparison to the whole atom may not be correct. One should examine the nature of gold and the velocity of the alpha particles. If he had used a very thin film of Tungsten, the result may have been very different. Repeating his experiment would not require 100 billion dollars like it is with CERN.

Very busy but will talk on this later.


Gregg Wilson